Bryan et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al
Filing
335
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL 323 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/20/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CHARLES RIDGWAY, et al.,
Case No. 08-cv-05221-SI
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO SEAL
9
10
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Re: Dkt. No. 323
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Currently before the Court is defendant’s administrative motion to seal a document in
14
support of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 323. Having considered the papers filed, including
15
the motion, the declaration of Jenna M. Yott in support of the motion, and the document proposed
16
to be sealed, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion without prejudice.
17
18
BACKGROUND
19
On July 8, 2016, defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) filed a motion to dismiss,
20
inter alia, the claims of class member Kevin Putnam. Docket No. 321. Wal-Mart claims that
21
Putnam “previously agreed to a general release of all claims against Wal-Mart as part of a
22
settlement in an unrelated matter, and that release covers Putnam’s claims in this action.” Id. at 1.
23
That same day, Wal-Mart filed an administrative motion to seal the settlement agreement
24
between Putnam and Wal-Mart. Docket No. 323. According to Wal-Mart, during Putnam’s
25
March 2016 deposition, the document “was marked ‘as confidential pursuant to the [P]rotective
26
[O]rder’ and plaintiffs’ counsel ‘ask[ed] that it be attached separately and treated as confidential.’”
27
Id. at 1. Wal-Mart contends that the document “contains sensitive information that Mr. Putnam
28
and Wal-Mart agreed to keep confidential, and the parties would be harmed if this information
1
were made public.” Id. Wal-Mart also filed a proposed “redacted” version of the document,
2
which redacts the text of the eleven-page document in its entirety. See Docket No. 323-2.
3
Wal-Mart states that it attempted to meet and confer with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the
4
requested relief, but that it received no response. Id. Plaintiffs filed no opposition to Wal-Mart’s
5
motion to seal.
6
LEGAL STANDARD
7
With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally [] kept secret,”
9
courts begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”
10
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reference to a
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is
12
not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-
13
5(d)(1)(A). “A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, or
14
portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection
15
under the law . . . .” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In addition, all requests to file under seal “must be
16
narrowly tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access.
17
Id.
18
When applying to file documents under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, the
19
party seeking to seal must articulate “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings
20
that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the
21
public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,
22
447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Where a party
23
seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, a showing of “good cause” is
24
sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Because a motion to dismiss is a
25
dispositive motion, the “compelling reasons” standard applies here. See Koninklijke Philips N.V.
26
v. Elec-Tech Int'l Co., No. 14-CV-02737-BLF, 2015 WL 581574, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2015).
27
28
2
DISCUSSION
1
2
The Court finds that Wal-Mart has not met its burden to obtain a sealing order. Wal-Mart
3
offers only that the document sought to be sealed was designated as confidential pursuant to the
4
protective order, and that the document “contains sensitive information.” See Docket No. 323 at
5
1. However, reference to the protective order “is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
6
portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). Wal-Mart makes no attempt to explain
7
why public filing of the document in question would cause harm to itself or to Putnam. Wal-Mart
8
states only that “the parties would be harmed if this information were made public.” See Docket
9
No. 323 at 2. Wal-Mart fails to offer a “compelling reason[]” to overcome strong public policy
10
favoring disclosure. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Additionally, Wal-Mart’s proposed redactions are not narrowly tailored, as Wal-Mart
12
proposes to seal the entirety of the agreement. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b); see also Verinata Health,
13
Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc, No. 12-CV-05501-SI, 2015 WL 1885626, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
14
24, 2015) (denying a motion to seal where defendant “failed to narrowly tailor its redactions.
15
[Defendant] propose[d] to seal whole pages of the transcript[.]”).
16
For the above reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to seal. Defendant may file a new
17
motion that complies with Civil Local Rule 79-5. The new motion must indicate why the
18
information is sealable, must be narrowly tailored to seal only sealable material (if any), and must
19
describe what specific harm or prejudice will result if the exhibit is not sealed.
20
CONCLUSION
21
22
23
For the foregoing reasons, Wal-Mart’s administrative motion to seal is DENIED without
prejudice to the parties' filing a new motion.
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 20, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?